Democrats ahead of Republicans on Open Source?

Linux Journal ^ | November 06, 2003 | Doc Searls

[antiRepublicrat]

Is there any significance to what Web server/platform combinations 2004 presidential candidates are using?

As we swing into the thick of the 2004 electoral playoffs, it's interesting to see what kinds of platforms are running under the candidates' official campaign Web sites. Netcraft has a handy feature called "What's that site running?" that lets us see combinations of Web servers and OS platforms. So here's a quick rundown, in alphabetical order:

• George W. Bush: Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000

• Wesley Clark: Apache on Linux

• Howard Dean: Apache on FreeBSD

• John Edwards: Microsoft IIS "behind a computer running NetWare"

• Richard Gephardt: Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000

• John Kerry: Apache on Linux

• Dennis Kucinich Apache on Linux

• Carol Mosely-Braun: Apache on FreeBSD

• Al Sharpton: Apache on Solaris 8

• Joe Lieberman: Apache on FreeBSD

For what it's worth, the Republican National Committee is running Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000, while the Democratic National Committee is running Apache on Linux.

As of this writing, November 5, 2003, the RNC has an uptime of 4.26 days (maximum of 39.04) and a 90-day moving average of 16.91. The DNC has an uptime of 445.02 days (also the maximum) and a 90-day moving average of 395.38 days.

Draw your own conclusions.

[antiRepublicrat]

Maybe the so-called "average user" only uses 10-20% of the features in Excel. But each "average user" doesn't use the same 10-20% featureset. Hence the need for 100% of the features offered

No, most users use, altogether, less than 90% of the features. I can give my wife as a good power-user example. She'd used Excel and Word for years, then we switched to OpenOffice at home to avoid stupid upgrade costs. She doesn't miss MS Office, and I see no advantages to the MS Office I use constantly at work.

Open source zealots always start out with outlandish claims of how superior their software is.

I can't make that general statement. I can say that certain free software in many roles and settings is better than Microsoft. I can also say that while sometimes it is inferior, it is not several hundred dollars per seat inferior.

Don't count me among the zealots. I do get mad at them when they say OSS will solve all problems in all circumstances, because that statement is plain wrong. For example, if you have someone who has some average need for graphics, go ahead and get the Gimp. However, these people try to say that graphics houses should dump Photoshop for it, but no way in hell is the Gimp up to that level no matter how much they scream it is.

For one, it won't render any except the most simple Powerpoint slides.

That's interoperability, not objective criteria of the merits of the software itself. If your entire office were set up with OpenOffice, that would not be a problem.

[antiRepublicrat]

It's funny how you replied to that one line, but didn't touch the rest of the history of Apple leading the computing market with new features, abilities and quality, much the way Mercedes has done all these years. Imagine the sad state of computing now had it not been for Apple to push the envelope.

[Bush2000]

Allowing unbundling of the suites at a decent cost was one of the unprecedented offers Microsoft made to try to win the Munich contract. Normally it's too expensive to buy just the applications you need across thousands of seats.

Oh, the horror... call the antitrust cops. /SARCASM

[Bush2000]

Considering that Macs are easier to use, more secure by design, include lots of useful bundled software, and are and less vulnerable to viruses and worms, it's exactly the average user who needs them

You're missing the point: The average user won't pay the Mac tax just to get a computer. And so it goes ... Mac ... also-ran ...

[Bush2000]

No, most users use, altogether, less than 90% of the features.

So now you presume to speak for "most users". Give my regards to the Psychic Network.

I can't make that general statement.

And you would be wise not to.

Don't count me among the zealots.

LMAO! Too funny...

That's interoperability, not objective criteria of the merits of the software itself. If your entire office were set up with OpenOffice, that would not be a problem.

Dude, welcome to reality. I can't help the fact that nearly all companies that do presentations use Powerpoint. And it's also a fact that presentation software is used a lot to get your message across to organizations outside your own. If you both don't use Powerpoint, you can either (1) throw up your hands and hope for the best, or (2) convert your slides to Powerpoint. Neither option is something that I would consider acceptable for a professional environment. Choose the right tool for the job. In this case, Powerpoint is the right choice.

[TheEngineer]

>> For one, it won't render any except the most simple
>> Powerpoint slides.

> That's interoperability, not objective criteria of the
> merits of the software itself. If your entire office were
> set up with OpenOffice, that would not be a problem.

The fact that you don't consider interoperability to be an "objective criteria of the merits of software" is a perfect example of someone inventing criteria that isn't objective.

Companies don't operate in their own private bubble. A person who defines bidding criteria for office software and who doesn't consider the effects of interoperability with suppliers and customers is most likely someone with an agenda.

In the case of Munich, it obviously wasn't a money saving agenda, since you said they rejected the low bid. I'd put my money on an anti-American agenda.

In the US, the low bidder is almost never rejected because of fear of lawsuits and corruption charges. Europe evidently has no such fear of screwing American companies. And why should they? They have so many vocal American supporters cheering them on... even here on Free Republic.

[antiRepublicrat]

The fact that you don't consider interoperability to be an "objective criteria of the merits of software

If you need that level of interoperability, then it would be in your criteria. If you don't, then it won't. It's that simple. But most organizations and companies do not have that much of a requirement for interoperability of document format. Basically, as long as you can read Word or Excel every once in a while, you're okay. I've worked in these places, from major universities to some of the biggest companies in the U.S.

Europe evidently has no such fear of screwing American companies.

You haven't been reading. Linux was ahead in the beginning because it came out ahead on a contracted third-party merit study. That Microsoft's price was so high was a definite nail in its coffin, but even lowering their initial bid so much was apparently not enough to overcome the shortcomings in other areas.

[antiRepublicrat]

So now you presume to speak for "most users".

Since I've supported thousands of them in different settings, I have a statistically significant sample to go off of.

And you would be wise not to.

Which is why I don't. You have to check each scenario to see which software is best. Unlike you, I don't automatically discount one type of software for all scenarios.

And it's also a fact that presentation software is used a lot to get your message across to organizations outside your own.

I'm well familiar with "Death By Powerpoint." And I also know that there are various interchange formats available, as well as packaged presentations, that don't require Powerpoint or other presentation software to be on the viewing machine.

It is actually this de-facto use of Word, Excel and Powerpoint by the government for document interchange that I detest. You cannot expect a citizen to buy software just to use government documents, and just as well companies are stupid if they want to put this burden on others. Luckily, they've gotten away from that a bit, and the open PDF and SGML formats are the generally recognized way to send documents.

[antiRepublicrat]

The average user won't pay the Mac tax just to get a computer.

Yet they are. Apple sales are up quite a bit. It's been hard to overcome their dark ages where mainly Mac faithful bought them, so market percentages will rise slowly.

[antiRepublicrat]

Oh, the horror... call the antitrust cops. /SARCASM

You have a great talent for missing the point.

[antiRepublicrat]

It wasn't hard to show proof with a quick Google. You have nothing to say?

[TheEngineer]

It is actually this de-facto use of Word, Excel and Powerpoint by the government for document interchange that I detest. You cannot expect a citizen to buy software just to use government documents...

Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and other Office components all have free reader software... just like Adobe offers free viewers for Acrobat PDF documents.

[Bush2000]

If you need that level of interoperability, then it would be in your criteria. If you don't, then it won't. It's that simple. But most organizations and companies do not have that much of a requirement for interoperability of document format.

And God knows, the federal government doesn't need to interoperate with anybody... /SARCASM

[Bush2000]

You haven't been reading. Linux was ahead in the beginning because it came out ahead on a contracted third-party merit study. That Microsoft's price was so high was a definite nail in its coffin, but even lowering their initial bid so much was apparently not enough to overcome the shortcomings in other areas.

Rrrrrright. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with seeking to avoid sending dollars to the United States companies... /SARCASM

[Bush2000]

Since I've supported thousands of them in different settings, I have a statistically significant sample to go off of.

Whatever, sunshine. You don't speak for "most users". If you think you do, put down the bong.

You cannot expect a citizen to buy software just to use government documents

By the same token, why require a user to buy a computer just to use government documents. Everything should be freeeeeeeeeeeeee.... /SARCASM

[TheEngineer]

[antiRepublicrat:] But most organizations and companies do not have that much of a requirement for interoperability of document format.

Yeah... Only those rare companies that want to communicate with other companies. ;-)

[Bush2000]

Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and other Office components all have free reader software... just like Adobe offers free viewers for Acrobat PDF documents

Stop. You're going to take away his illuions...

[Golden Eagle]

Here's something I found interesting - Barney Frankfurter I mean Frank is supporting Linux. I mean who should be surprised right, the dims all love it since it fits into their socialist plan so well...

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=85666&cid=7460723

[Bush2000]

It wasn't hard to show proof with a quick Google. You have nothing to say?

Thanks for the link! It's good to see that companies such as MS are willing to compete. What's amusing is that you think this is somehow a MS-only behavior ...

[Bush2000]

Yet they are. Apple sales are up quite a bit. It's been hard to overcome their dark ages where mainly Mac faithful bought them, so market percentages will rise slowly.

You're confusing revenue with market share. Macs simply cost more -- and that's one of the reasons that Apple's market share remains negligible.